Screenshot of the abstract of our most recent publication exploring values-led practice in complex digital heritage contexts. Read it open access at https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3771096
I have been lucky to collaborate over the past two years with the REPLACE Project. This collaboration has really made me think differently about leadership, about guiding teams with values in mind, and about how digital immersive technology can support people in different ways in responding to loss and its many complexities.
Screenshot of Ethics as Pratice report by Ananda Rutherford, Anna-Maria Sichani, Katrina Foxton and me. Availalbe at: https://zenodo.org/records/13683142
I’m writing this post from Manchester, UK, where we’ve been wrapping up the Unpath’d Waters (UNPATH) project, as well as the wider Towards a National Collection (TANC) programme that funded it plus four other ‘Discovery Projects’. We’ve done a lot of exciting work through UNPATH – from values-led practice (read more here) to in-depth audience analysis (published here and available for download here) to experimentation with visually-impaired co-designers in rethinking evaluation methods (stay tuned for more details!).
Beyond UNPATH, I am very proud of a piece of research we did in partnership with all of the TANC projects, which resulted in a publication on Ethics as Practice, available to download here. I was struggling early on in my project to manage expectations, systems, and human (and planetary) needs. I was not alone, and through communications with several amazing colleagues on other TANC projects we managed to grow a community together concerned to ensure that the next stages of investment into collections-oriented research and innovation in the UK are underpinned by a genuine commitment to ethical practices.
I am in awe of Ananda Rutherford who has led on this initiative from the outset, and feel lucky to have co-authored the publication with her, alongside Katrina Foxton and Anna-Maria Sichani – backed by the ideas and feedback of dozens of TANC colleagues. We are hosting a session at the TANC conference tomorrow, Thursday 21 November, starting at exactly 11.35am (online and in-person), where we will summarise the report and open it up to critique and comparison across different institutions and spaces, extending it beyond TANC. Here the incredible Tehmina Goskar, Paola Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco & Tao Tao Chang will share their experiences. Indeed, Tehmina has already provided a detailed response online, helping to push forward the conversation – please read!
If we don’t see you in Manchester or you’re not able to join the conference online, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with your thoughts. There is also a huge body of literature on this topic, and we have compiled a Zotero bibliography to help contextualise our thinking. You can consult the bibliography here.
It’s International Women’s Day today and the moment seems appropriate to seek your advice in relation to matters of prevention of, protection from, and institutional action around, harm and harassment in field-based projects.
Several years ago, after a series of challenging experiences overseeing fieldwork teams on local and international projects, I drafted a code of conduct – or Six Fieldwork Expectations – to use with my collaborators. The Expectations were inspired by various other contemporary initiatives (e.g., Dig Ventures’ Learning Agreement), and focus on creating respectful, safe, secure and non-threatening working and living environments for all project contributors.
Since publishing the Fieldwork Expectations document, it has been adapted and elaborated by different individuals, institutions and projects in various parts of the world. Some have instigated evaluations of its effectiveness through surveys and other assessment methods. These data are critical, especially as I’ve been asked several times about what proof I have that codes of conduct make a difference to safety and dignity in the field.
Seeking your help to evaluate effects
Right now I’m gathering and collating this evidence to present in a variety of contexts over the next six months (data anonymised, as requested by all contributors so far). I will discuss at least four case studies of the Code of Conduct in action in different projects/institutions, and I am keen to solicit further data from those who’ve used the Six Fieldwork Expectations document or created their own specific codes of conduct.Â
My interest is in speaking empirically about the efficacy of these codes of conduct. What do I mean by ‘efficacy’?
I have been looking recently into how an organisation or project responds ‘courageously’ to instances of harm and harassment. Per Jennifer Freyd, this includes:Â
sensitively reacting to victim disclosures
being accountable and apologising
encouraging whistleblowing
educating your leaders
being transparent about policies
self-reflecting and self-evaluating
I’m thus seeking evidence of successes and failures in applying codes of conduct, especially data that testify to whether such codes actually enable or otherwise hinder ‘courageous’ behaviours.
Adapting the code of conduct to enable courageous responses
Like most people I know who have adapted the Fieldwork Expectations document, my own teams have changed it over time and buttressed it with different support mechanisms. For instance, inspired by an amazing scholar who approached me a couple of years ago about her experiences, my teams now take turns reading parts of the code aloud before a project begins in an effort to create a common bond between the group. We’ve also created a simplified version of the code to use with collaborators whose language and reading needs mean that speaking aloud the key ideas and providing common verbal acknowledgements are more meaningful than reading then signing the document.
I also know from my own applications of the code that it can be
overly wordy and too intellectualised
needs translation and adaptation for different contexts
is only meaningful when supported by other initiatives to encourage openness and education
is currently not very effective in relation to minimising harm through social media, especially use of WhatsApp or FB Messenger among team members
I would be very grateful for your help in identifying case studies where empirical evaluation of the Fieldwork Expectations document has been undertaken. If you could spread the word or contact me directly with information, I’ll be incredibly appreciative.
I’ll be presenting my preliminary findings first in Manchester (see poster above), hosted by the incredible Hannah Cobb. But if you are not in a position to travel, I’ll keep you posted as I continue to gather evidence. All feedback and data are very much appreciated!
It’s 
SARA PERRY 
